Legal Opinion

McIlmail, D. v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 7, 2018No. 1009 EDA 2017PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtOpinion By Panella, J.

In this case we are asked to resolve two issues: (1) are notes and memoranda of witness interviews by a private investigator, acting at the express direction of defense counsel, protected by the work-product doctrine, as defined in Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure No. 4003.3, to the same extent as if the interviews were conducted by counsel, and (2) whether the defense should be estopped from relying upon the work-product doctrine because it pursued disclosure of the identical materials from the claimant's attorneys.

As indicated above, the discovery under review involves notes from…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. United States v. NoblesSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  2. Ben v. SchwartzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  3. Geniviva v. FriskSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  4. Commonwealth v. KennedySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  5. Yocabet v. UPMC PresbyterianSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Carlino East Brandywine v. Brandywine VillageSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2021
  2. Boyle, J. v. Meyer, J.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2025
  3. Colton, F. v. West Penn Power CompanySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2020
  4. Com. v. Hamilton, R.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2021
  5. Hartley, P. v. Einstein Medical CenterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2020

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API